CHAPTER 1 Introduction - OpenSIUC

TERMINAL OPERATION PROBLEMS 1

CHAPTER 1

Introduction

Airport passenger terminal operations have several problems frequently observed in many

airports. What are some of the common problems of terminal operations? Based on growth and

development, increases in the number of passengers’ and aircraft movements, airport terminal

operations have had to adjust many of their procedures and implement different services for

passengers, especially when they are being processed at airport terminals (Sorenson, 2015; Tošić,

1992). Problems that are commonly observed inside airport terminal buildings as a result of these

increases in passenger’s numbers are found in the terminals' check-in process, security

procedures, and passenger walking distances, gates, and baggage claim (Hsu et al. 2012; Tošić,

1992).

The purpose of this research is to identify the specific problems that impact airport terminal

operations. It also seeks to explore the impacts that these problems have on specific aspects of

passenger terminal operations. The question guiding this research is: What factors impact airport

passenger terminal operations? Numerous factors can be considered problematic in affecting

airport terminal operations. There are some problems which are consistently shown to cause the

most concern and pose the most difficulty for airport passenger terminal operations. Since

operating passenger flight is the airports' essential duty, defining and investigating the problems

that affect flight operations and finding adequate solutions for these problems is fundamental for

improving airport terminal operations.

Exploring this research question, this research is organized as follows. Following chapter

one of introduction, in the second chapter, the literature review presents a background of the

related aspects that involve in the problems of airport terminal operations. Through the different


sources used in this research paper, an introduction can be provided for each discussed problems

clarifying what are the areas where problems of airport passenger terminal operations can be

observed. In the third chapter, the common problems of airport terminal operations can be

identified and explained. The outcomes and suggestions or recommendations for solving each

problem have also been addressed. In the fourth chapter, a case study about examining gate

availability issues at Dallas Love Airport has been presented. The case study indicates how

limiting airport terminal gates affect passenger terminal operations. The fifth chapter of this

research paper is the conclusion. In the last section, a list of different reliable sources has been

shown in the reference section.

This research paper can be important for airport operators and airlines since it presents the

commonly observed problems of airport terminal operations. Through introducing each of these

common problems, airport operators, including the managers or executives, and airline personnel

can be more familiarized with these problems and encouraged to find more solutions. This

research paper is a well-documented collection of airports terminals’ common operational

problems, outcomes, and given recommendations from many professional sources. Since many

of the world’s airports are public organizations, dealing with any of the airport’s operational

problems means a concern(s) for problems of public administration. In spite of giving all of the

factual observations within airport terminal operations, this research paper can raise many

questions regarding what can be the main reasons behind existing the common problems of

airport terminal operations. This should encourage public administrators to look for the best

recommendations through implementing the most suitable organizational theories for airport

management as part of the public service management.


CHAPTER 2

Literature Review

Airport Terminal and Terminal Operations

Airport terminals are buildings that contain many essential facilities. According to Price and

Forrest (2016), the airport terminal is the airport's main passenger building; it starts from the

terminal curbside and extends to the screening checkpoint, including the concourse beyond the

screening checkpoint. Through a variety of procedures, airport passenger terminals can provide

numerous services for the airlines and their passengers. Graham (2014) reports that terminal

services provided by airports include such things as security, customs, and immigration; they

may also contain commercial or non-aviation facilities like retail stores, food and beverage areas,

places for entertainment, and internet facilities. Price and Forrest (2016) indicate that airport

terminals contain facilities for airport passengers and baggage processes, airport maintenance

and operational activities, airport and airline administration, and airport cargo handling.

Based on their prominence as the airports' main structure, the terminal buildings often house

operations that provide special roles or services to the airlines and their passengers. Price and

Forrest (2016) report that the most important role and function of airport passenger terminals

involve transferring passengers from ground transportation to air transportation and then vice

versa. Moreover, the airport terminal is the area that connects the airfield to the rest of the airport;

it is the area that creates a linkage between landside and airside operations (Price and Forrest,

2016).

As the fundamental part of an airport’s landside services, terminals can be managed and

operated by different parties. Hamzawi (1992) states that airport landside is the area that consists

of various zones like apron/gates area, air terminal building(s), ground access area, and vehicle


parking areas. Price and Forrest (2016) report that airport terminal operations can be managed by

either the airport operators through the airport-dominant approach, or European model, or by the

airlines though the airline-dominant approach. Both of these approaches concentrate on

providing staff to supervise terminal services and baggage and passenger handling services.

Large airports often use a combination of these models in order to implement service delivery.

This means that they use some aspects from each of these two approaches (Price and Forrest

2016).

The consistent increase in the volume of air traffic has impacted airport operations. Perhaps,

most importantly has been the recognition on the part of airport operators to engage in more

planning and analysis of their airport terminal operations. According to Hamzawi (1992), there

are certain times of the day when air traffic peaks or is at its highest and busiest volume. This

“daily” phenomenon often results in congestion at the airports' airsides and terminal buildings;

the arrival of a huge numbers of passengers may strangle the activities of immigration, customs,

security control facilities, and many of the terminal services like baggage handling. Sorenson

(2015) suggests that more effective airport terminal operations can be achieved by improving

data collection and analysis measures. This means that airport managers can improve their

overall performance by increasing their understanding of traffic flows and passenger data which

can then be used to influence terminal planning; planners are supposed to focus on the larger

perspective of terminals as their essential mission.

Airport Terminal Design

There are different kinds of airport passenger terminal buildings in terms of design and

operations. de Neufville and Odoni (2003) show that there are five basic configurations of airport

passenger buildings. These five design types are called finger piers, satellites, midfield, Linear,


and transporters. These configurations can be suitably made for major airports by the attempts of

designers. Consequently, airport terminal designers use several ways to make different shapes by

taking different possibilities into considerations (de Neufville and Odoni, 2003).

The five configurations of terminal buildings offer different shapes and designs to passenger

terminals. The Finger pier configuration can be visualized or imagined as fingers attached to the

palm of the hand; they are narrow extended areas from the central point of the passenger facility

where aircraft can be parked and surrounded on both sides (de Neufville and Odoni, 2003). The

Satellites configuration resembles the extension of T-shaped finger piers. In this design the gates

are usually located at the end of the fingers (de Neufville and Odoni, 2003). According to de

Neufville and Odoni (2003), midfield concourses can be either linear or X-shaped. They often

have separate passenger buildings approximately a kilometer long and have around 50 gates.

These gates can be accessed by the passengers from the groundside. A linear building is a narrow

structure with one side designed for aircraft parking and the other side faces roads and parking

lot areas (de Neufville and Odoni, 2003). Transporters can include the busses that transfer

passengers from certain terminal gates to the aircrafts that have been parked in the remote stands.

These busses have been specially designed for passengers’ movement, access, and baggage

transfer (de Neufville and Odoni, 2003).

In terms of functions and operational systems, airport passenger terminals can also be

classified into different groups. Bandara and Wirasinghe (1992) present two categories of

terminals: centralized terminals and semi-centralized terminals. In centralized terminals,

passenger services such as ticketing, and baggage claim, and other passenger processing zones

are located in the center of the terminal building(s) (Bandara and Wirasinghe, 1992). In the semi-


centralized terminals, passenger processing facilities have been separately distributed according

to groups of aircraft gates (Bandara and Wirasinghe, 1992).

There are some factors that have their own impact on the configuration of airport terminals.

One common factor is the distances passengers have to walk between flights or to the main

terminal building: terminal walking distance. de Neufville and Odoni (2003) describe two

matrices that are used by designers to analyze walking distances in the terminals. These two

“matrices” are impedance and flow matrices. The impedance matrix is defined as the level of

difficulty passenger’s face while transferring between two gates inside the terminal building.

This analysis measure basically gives a description about the facility's physical aspects or

geometry (de Neufville and Odoni, 2003). On the other hand, the flow matrix delineates the

volume of passengers based on information about their origin points and destinations. The flow

matrix also identifies and analyzes such issues as the volume at specific gates or other access

points in the terminal. This information provides designers, planners, and managers with the

necessary data they need to improve operational performance (de Neufville and Odoni, 2003).

Bandara and Wirasinghe (1992) suggest that airport terminal passengers can be categorized

according to terminal design or walking distances. In their study they report that there are two

main groups of passengers. They divide these categories into those: arriving (terminating)

passengers and departing (originating) passengers, and a second category of transferring

passengers. The latter group can be sub-divided into hub and non-hub transfer passengers. Other

researchers like Bandara and Wirasinghe (1992) define “Arriving passengers” as those

passengers who arrive at the terminal by aircraft and move from the arrival gate to the ground

transportation area. Normally, this is done after they walk through the baggage claim area and

retrieve their luggage. Departing passengers are those who arrive at the terminal from the ground


transportation facility to the departure gate by moving through each of the necessary security

checks and check-in counters. In addition, Bandara and Wirasinghe (1992) identify transferring

passengers as those who move from one aircraft to another without leaving the airport terminal.

Additionally, some researchers continue their analysis of airport terminals by examining the

flow or process of passengers walking though airport terminals. In these analyses, transferring

passengers are divided into hub transfers and non-hub transfers (Bandara and Wirasinghe, 1992).

Hub transfers are the passengers who move directly from the arrival gate to the departure gate.

These passengers can be pre-ticketed if their boarding passes have been issued before starting

their connected flight, or they can be processed from the departure gate, after moving through a

short connecting time (Bandara and Wirasinghe, 1992).

Federal Funding for Airport Terminals Development

The Federal Government is the main sponsor for funding airports including the costs

associated with the development of airport terminals. According to the FAA Advisory Circular

(1988), as the successor to the-Airport and Airway Development Act of 1970, the 1982 Act (P.L.

97-248) financially supports United States' airports and airway systems for necessary

improvements. Through the Airport Improvement Program (AIP) of the 1982 Act, section 513,

eligible public-use airports are provided with federal funds for airport terminal developments

(FAA Advisory Circular, 1988). The development of airports' different structures may be given

by Federal financial assistance according to their eligibility. The FAA Advisory Circular (1988)

indicates that Federal grant-in-aid monies may be provided for developing different airport

facilities such as airports' different facilities like airport surface access, multimodal terminals,

and other terminal areas. This grant-in-aid program also covers many AIP eligible projects


related to the movements of passengers and baggage through the use of the Passenger Facility

Charge (PFC) programs.

The U.S. Federal government has its own requirements for considering certain airports

eligible or ineligible to receive funds for their terminal development costs. According to the FAA

Advisory Circular (1988), in reference to dealing with prorating terminal building development,

the determination of eligibility for federal share is made by the Federal Aviation Administration

(FAA). Based on engineering justifications and by reviewing the devoted areas of passenger

flows and baggage, the FAA makes its determinations about terminal development funds. Other

related procedures required for making these decisions are discussed in the FAA Airports office

FAA Advisory Circular (1988).

Airport Passenger Terminal Check-in

Throughout the check-in system of airport terminals, the passenger check-in process uses

both traditional and contemporary forms of check-in counters. According to Wells and Young

(2011), the process of passenger check-in has significantly improved in recent years. They

maintain that this obvious progress has been achieved by preserving some of the airport’s

traditional policy and models like ticketing. Wells and Young (2011) define the traditional

check-in counters as the specific areas or facilities that are being operated by the air carriers' staff

The usage of passenger check-in counters can be different based on their configurations. Wells

and Young (2011) report that check-in counters can be configured for exclusive use or common

use. The exclusive use of counters can often be identified according to certain configurations of

information systems, computers, and equipment. For example, some check-in counters are

provided specifically for one airline. Whereas, common check-in counters are configured to be

used by multiple air carriers (Wells and Young, 2011). According to Wells and Young (2011),


common use ticketing facilities are often provided with common-use terminal equipment (CUTE)

which is a computer-based system designed for operating systems of any airline that take part in

the check-in facility. Bellioti et al. (2010) define the "common use" as the technological

approach used by air carriers to process passengers at the check-in counter area, self-service

check in counters, or at the gates.

In addition, airport terminal check-in facilities may vary according to an airline’s operations

and available services. Hsu et al. (2012) indicate that check-in passengers basically need to be

provided with four types of services: ticket purchase, check-in, boarding pass, and checking

baggage. According to Hsu et al. (2012), four standard check-in facilities exist in the operations

of air carriers among airport passenger terminals. These are the counter check-in, self-service

check-in kiosks, online check-in, and barcode check-in. The counter check-in system seems to be

the most all-around or adaptable processing method since it is able to combine all the offered

services. The Barcode check-in system is capable of only issuing a barcode boarding pass (Hsu

et al., 2012). Other options like the Kiosk systems are automated self-service check-in devices

and are not able to offer ticket purchases, while online check-in systems cannot be applicable for

checking baggage service (Hsu et al., 2012).

Baggage Handling

With its structure and multiple functions, baggage handling plays a crucial role in processing

airport terminal passengers. Wells and Young (2011) state that baggage handling services consist

of a number of activities like collection, sorting, and distribution of baggage. Moreover, they

maintain that efficient baggage handling can be a prominent element for improving overall

passenger satisfaction with the terminals performance. According to Robuste and Daganzo

(1992), baggage is collected in the check-in area upon the arrival of departing passengers.


Through the check-in process, passengers' baggage will be weighed, tagged according to final

destination, and then transferred via a mechanical conveyer belt to the sorting area.

The process of sorting involves moving baggage through an adaptable electronic system.

Through this type of sorting facility, bags will normally be classified according to the flight’s

destinations (Robuste and Daganzo, 1992). Wells and Young (2011) report that several different

types of technology and innovative techniques are involved in sorting and distributing baggage.

For example, high-speed conveyer belts can transfer baggage between airport terminals and

different flight lines. Often these systems are connected or jointed together with containers that

are able to be put on and taken off the aircraft (Wells and Young, 2011). In addition, the

distribution of bags can be done using machine-readable tags. This type of computerized

baggage sorting equipment has been installed at many airports (Wells and Young, 2011).

These types of systems allow arriving passengers to retrieve their bags at the baggage claim

facilities through the carousals. Wells and Young (2011) report that baggage claim facilities are

usually located in the related areas of airport ground transportation, like parking lots, shuttle vans,

taxi cabs, and car rental counters. Arriving passengers can get their bags from the carousals that

have been suitably designed for easy access and designated based on specific flights operated by

certain air carriers (Wells and Young, 2011).

Passenger Terminal Gates

Airport terminal gates are the main areas for moving passengers and cargo to and from the

aircraft. According to Wells and Young (2011), terminal gates are the places where passengers

arrive from or depart to the aircraft. These are also the locations at which the loaded and

unloaded cargo is exchanged between terminals and aircrafts. Tošić (1992) defines “gate” as the


term used for an aircraft parking position on the apron and the part of the terminal building

devoted to the parked aircraft. Tošić (1992) introduces a module that has been set to identify two

types of terminal buildings based on the number of gates. These are single-level and two-level

terminals. Single-level terminals have 8 gates with the capability of receiving 1 million

passengers per year. Two-level terminals have 16 gates with the capacity of receiving 2 million

passengers per year (Tošić, 1992).

Many attempts have been made by different users for achieving different goals and dealing

with gate usage problems. Bouras et al. (2014) report that airport owners and airlines have

different objectives and consequently many different ways for dealing with the efficient use of

airport terminal gates. Airport owners, who represent the government, often attempt to increase

the utilization of the available gates by decreasing the number of gate conflicts and minimizing

the number of ungated flights and unnecessary delays (Bouras et al., 2014). In addition, many

airline owners attempt to minimize the walking distances between the gates in order to maximize

customers’ satisfaction and minimize the distance between runways and the assigned gates

(Bouras et al., 2014).

Many factors may affect the number of the gates used at an airport terminal. According to

Wells and Young (2011), the number of commercial gates operated a day depends on a variety of

factors. These include the number and type of aircraft scheduled to use a gate, turnaround time or

gate occupancy time, and gate-usage agreements. Based on the planning of gate facilities, for

each aircraft type, there should be at least one parking position available to accommodate the

aircraft (Wells and Young, 2011). Turnaround time, or turn, is defined as the period that an

aircraft spends on the ground between the arriving and departing times of a flight (Bielaire and


Kumar, 2013).Gate-usage agreement refers to the agreement(s) that an airline has with airport

management for using certain numbers of gates (Wells and Young, 2011).

Airport Security

Through its various procedures, airport security involves all the actions that are taken to

protect airports from any criminal actions that affect airport safety. According to Wells and

Young (2011), the procedures of airport security have been designed to prevent crimes and react

to the criminal acts that affect the travelling public in terms of safety and security. Graham (2014)

believes that airport security is involved in preventing illegal acts including terrorist activities.

Dealing with airport security, certain criminal acts and activities are specifically identified. These

include such things as the hijacking of aircraft, also called air piracy, destroying or afflicting

plane(s) with explosives, and terrorist acts, which are defined as organized activities

unexpectedly carried out against the public or individuals to gain political goals (Wells and

Young, 2011). Acts like assault, theft, vandalization against passengers, aircraft, or airport

facilities are also considered criminal activities (Wells and Young, 2011).

Throughout the history of civil aviation, there have always been concerns about airport

security. Over the years these concerns have evolved and grown along with incidences of

terrorist attacks or crimes committed against airports in the United States and other countries.

According to Wells and Young (2011), more than 600 aircraft hijackings and more than 100

aircraft bombings have been recorded in world history in relation to commercial aviation. The

world's first catastrophic aircraft hijacking happened in July 1947 where a flight attendant was

killed by three Romanians (Wells and Young, 2011).

Severe terrorist actions of hijacking have defined specific eras and resulted in drastic

changes in the world's airport security policies and procedures. Wells and Young (2011) report


that the event of 9/11 has been the worst terrorist attack in the history of commercial aviation. In

this attack four separate aircrafts were hijacked and exploded by a group of Al-Qaida terrorists in

September 11, 2001.According to Graham (2014), following the 9/11 events, many security

measures were introduced within airport security operations. Particularly in the United States,

airport security became the focus of national concerns as a considerable issue (Graham, 2014).

One consequence of the attacks was the signing of the Aviation and Transportation Security Act

(ATSA) which provided airport security with fundamental changes (Wells and Young, 2011). In

terms of global concerns, in 2002, airport security was adopted by the International Civil

Aviation Organization (ICAO) through Aviation Security Plan of Action (Graham, 2014).

The 9/11 attacks have not been the last terrorist acts against aircrafts or airports. Airport

passenger terminals, for instance, are still being targeted by terrorist attacks. On March 22, 2016,

two explosions struck the Zaventem International Airport's main terminal ('BBC News', 2014).

This attack was committed by two terrorists suicide attackers who targeted the airport's check-in

area killing 11 people and injuring 81 ('BBC News', 2014). Another explosion on the same day

in the same city’s metro station was also carried out by the terrorist group of the Islamic State in

Iraq and Syria (ISIS). This group declared its responsibility for committing this act ('BBC News',

2014). This recent terrorist attack indicate that the fact that airports are still being widely targeted

by terrorists; it obligates airports to always make plans for efficient airport security.

Based on all the possibilities of criminal attacks that threaten the airports and airport

terminals, several security activities and procedures have been adopted by all major airports.

Graham (2014) introduces some of the activities affiliated with airport security. For example,

today there are new security badge systems, baggage reconciliation, armed protection for

landside and airside, video supervision, and checks on staff who have access to the restricted


areas. Wells and Young (2011) define some of the common security-related areas at the

commercial airport services, such as passenger screening, baggage screening, and biometrics.

Wells and Young (2011) explain that passenger screening facilities are often automated

checking processes that can be done through magnetometer or walk-through metal detectors

(WTMD), which are able to detect weapons if carried by passengers. These devices are located

in the security screening zones where passengers’ carry-on bags are inspected through X-ray

machines to find prohibited items like firearms, sharp objects, volatile liquids, or plastic or

chemical-based trace explosives (Wells and Young, 2011). Further inspections can be conducted

for suspected bags or for bags selected randomly through the explosive trace detection (ETD)

equipment (Wells and Young, 2011).Other technologies like Biometrics are used to identify and

recognize certain human body features like fingerprints, eye retinas and irises, voice and facial

patterns, and hand measurements (Wells and Young, 2011). Graham (2014) introduces two types

of biometric identification: psychological and behavioral biometrics. Psychological biometrics is

used for recognizing fingerprints, retina, or iris patterns; behavioral biometrics is used for

investigating aspects of behavior like voice and signature (Graham, 2014).

CHAPTER 3

Recommendations for Addressing Problems of Airport Terminal Operations

Airport terminal operational problems can be observed among various airport services. Tošić

(1992) reports that passenger terminal issues are increasingly connected with the tangled airport

planning and their solutions are important to airport terminals in terms of expansion and

operations. Based on numerous research findings there are several airport terminal operation

problems that can be identified. The issues include factors such as the demand for space and

services, single service counter-type facilities, waiting areas facilities, baggage processing


facilities, terminal buildings, gate number and utilization, and passenger orientation (Tošić,

1992). Bellioti et al. (2010 specify some specific operational problems within airport passenger

terminals regarding check-in counter assignments, gate area assignments, airline back offices,

terminal security, and curbside.

The literature review provides us with insight on the numerous factors that that can affect

airport passenger terminal operations. Moreover, the literature shows many of the outcomes and

reports about many solutions to these problems. In terms of design, de Neufville and Odoni

(2003) report that passenger terminal designers may face many problems regarding distributing

passengers within the designated terminal areas. Many airports have major financial and

operational issues that affect passenger buildings due to selecting improper design and

configuration (de Neufville and Odoni, 2003). According to Sorenson (2015), the consistent

increases in the number of passengers within the airline industry requires terminal design and its

related aspects to be necessarily dealt with along with the subsequent changes. Table 1 shows the

impacts of several factors related to airport passenger terminal design on terminal operations.

Limited government funding for airport terminal planning and design may limit terminal

building improvements and operational activities. The FAA Advisory Circular (1988) reports

that in addition to considering maintenance and operating costs, the ultimate terminal plan should

seriously attempt to meet its functional objectives within acceptable levels of funding. Federal

grant funds may not pay for debt services for the bonds that are issued for airport terminal

development. There are only few exceptions taken into account by meeting some specific criteria

like definition of the airport under the Airport and Airway Improvement Act, the time window of

the improvement, after July 1, 1970 and before July 12, 1976, and provision of safety and

security equipment by the airport sponsor (FAA Advisory Circular, 1988). As a result, the


Source: de Neufville and Odoni, 2003; Kusumaningtyas et al., 2007; Tošić, 1992; Drexl and

Nikulin, 2008; Advisory Circular, 1988; NPIAS, 2015).

design of the airport terminal faces many demands, restrictions, and constraints due to limitations

of Federal funds (FAA Advisory Circular, 1988).

Many attempts have been made for funding airports and airport terminal improvements.

Congress has made many changes to make more financial assistance available to airports like

expanding the AIP eligibility for financial assistance. This program uses some sources of

Table 1

The Impacts of Terminal Design Problems on Terminal Operations

Problems (Factors)

Outcomes

Solutions

Terminal Design

Long passenger walking

distances

1) Time pressure for arriving, departing, and transfer passengers walking in the terminals. 2) Increasing transfer time.

1) Minimizing the walking distances: a) From terminal check-in area to

the gates for departing passengers.

b) From arriving gates to baggage claim area for arriving passengers.

2) Minimizing each of the connection time, walking distance, and ungated flights for transfer passengers.

Narrow passage ways

Passenger congestion inside the terminals; arriving and departing passengers mix to each other

1) Providing additional immigration areas for international arriving passengers. 2) Using the parameters of persons/ meters/ minute (PMM) and deducting the elements of edge effects, counter-flow effect, and obstacles from the geometric width of the terminal passage ways.

Limited federal funding

Limited passenger terminal improvement

Encouraging the Federal government to increase airport funding through the use of user charges, including the use of Passenger Facilities Charge (PFC).


financing, like the Passenger Facility Charges (PFC) (FAA Advisory Circular, 1988). According

to de Neufville and Odoni (2003), in addition to existing airport user charges the Passenger

Facility Charges program is part of the airport-related taxes that are collected from airport

passenger ticket prices under the authorization of the Federal Aviation Administration and used

to fund airport improvements. Through its annual report for the fiscal years 2015-2019, the

National Plan of Integrated Airport Systems (NPIAS) has reported to Congress about the

depiction of desired needs for airport funds by indicating many facts about receiving PFC

approval from the FAA. According to NPIAS (2015), PFC funds totaling $2.9 billion have been

received by several development programs like terminal projects at San Francisco International,

a terminal project at Salt Lake City International, and an in-line baggage system at Seattle

Tacoma International.

Inefficient design of airport passenger buildings can affect passenger flows in airport

terminals.de Neufville and Odoni (2003) report that passenger walking distances require

designers to look for better configurations since the geometrical measures of distances are mostly

wrong and deceptive. Kusumaningtyas et al. (2007) explains that long walking distances can

affect arriving, departing, and transfer passengers by pushing them to save time while waking

among airport terminals. Any increase in passenger walking distances results in increases in

passengers' transferring time which includes Minimum Connected Time (MCT) and passengers'

waiting time. This is basically not desired by airlines and airport operators (Kusumaningtyas et

al., 2007).

Short walking distances for arriving and departing passengers are preferable. Tošić (1992)

indicates that minimizing the walking distances between the check-in areas and the gates for

departing passengers and between the arrival gates and baggage claim areas for arriving


passengers, has given significant results and improved passenger walking distances. Drexl and

Nikulin (2008) suggest minimizing each of the connection times, walking distances, and ungated

flights. This means maximizing gate usage for connected flights and for transfer passengers.

Narrow passage ways is another problem that affects airports' terminal operations. de

Neufville and Odoni (2003) illustrate that there will be major confusion between arriving and

8departing passengers mixed together at a 3 meters wide corridor of a linear terminal building

when several aircrafts have landed at the same time. According to de Neufville and Odoni (2003),

a convenient passageway width is essential for avoiding passenger congestion inside the

terminals. To solve this problem it is recommended that airport designers should provide

additional immigration areas for international arriving passengers (de Neufville and Odoni,

2003).

de Neufville and Odoni (2003) make several recommendations for dealing with congestion

issues. They suggest the implementation of a parameter. By using this parameter with the

number of passengers, unit width, and unit time will be taken into account. More specifically, the

units of persons/ meters/ minute (PMM) will be calculated in setting a convenient distance for

passageway width. According to de Neufville and Odoni (2003), three elements should be

subtracted from the geometric width to achieve an effective width for an airport terminal's

passage way. These are edge effects, counter-flow effect, and obstacles. Edge effects refer to the

0.5 m length from each of the passageway walls that a pedestrian needs to get away from. The

Counter-flow effect is the 0.5 m space which a pedestrian needs to shy away from the oncoming

traffic and obstacles could be video monitors, vending machines, or shopping stands that should

be within a space and subtracted from the geometric width of the passageway (de Neufville and

Odoni, 2003).


There are also certain problems associated with check-in procedures and check-in counters

that could affect airport passenger terminal operations. Table 2 illustrates the common problems

of passenger check-in and their impacts on terminal operations. Hsu et al. (2012) report that

several common problems related to the check-in process can cause passengers flight delay.

These include limited timeframe for check-in before departure, limited number of available

check-in counters, and special facilities for passengers with priority, like first class. Despite all

Source: (Bellioti et al., 2010; Hsu et al., 2012).

the assistance hat kiosks can provide, temporary congestions may occur due to gathering

Table 2

Passenger check-in problems

Problems (Factors)

Outcomes

Solutions

Passenger Check-in

Limited check-in time before departure

Flight delay

Airlines should: - Avoid using time for passengers ticketing on the check-in counters - Provide kiosks and make them used by passengers.

Limited number

of available check-in counters

Flight delay

Airlines or airport operators may: - Reduce dwell times during passenger check-in utilization - Use full-service check-in counters - Install counters that can be used for specific functions like ticketing and or baggage drop off - Use diversified check-in facilities, or dynamic allocation of check-in facilities

Special facilities

for priority passengers

Flight delay

Temporary

congestion due to using kiosks

Flight delay

Airlines or airport operators may use diversified check-in facilities, or dynamic allocation of check-in facilities


passengers at the check-in area when kiosks embedded to the check-in counters being used by

them (Bellioti et al., 2010).

To avoid these types of check-in problems mentioned above among airport terminals,

different recommendations and suggestions have been presented through conducting many

research studies. According to Bellioti et al. (2010), to achieve an effective performance of the

passenger check-in process, airlines can avoid using time for passenger ticketing at the check-in

counters; time of using counters for ticketing should be spent before gate utilization. Hsu et al.

(2012) suggest that using kiosks, as automated service check-in devices, saves time for

passengers and saves space for airport terminals.

Also, making check-in counters more available can be helpful to reduce passengers waiting

time and flight delays. Bellioti et al. (2010), recommend that to improve passenger processing,

airlines may reduce spending time for ticketing during passenger check-in utilization. Using full-

service counters, which means certain counters can be used to accommodate all airlines check-in

services, or installing counters that can be used for specific functions like ticketing and or

baggage drop off by the airlines can also be helpful to increase availability of check-in counters

and time saving (Bellioti et al., 2010).

It has been noted by some researchers that temporary congestion around the terminal check-

in area has been one of the factors that causes flight delays. Bellioti et al. (2010) found that

placing the kiosks near the check-in area and designing passenger flows behind the kiosks can be

one solution for reducing congestion within an airport terminal. Moreover, lining up the kiosks in

the terminal lobby without creating que lines may reduce congestion (Bellioti et al., 2010). Hsu

et al. (2012) suggest that using diversified check-in facilities or dynamic allocation of check-in


facilities can be helpful to prevent congestion and delays at check-in counters, as well as reduce

check-in times, and enable passengers to choose their preferable seats based on their needs.

Along with these changes and progress in the airport industry, baggage handling still faces

many technical and operational problems. Table 3 illustrates several baggage handling problems

with their impacts on certain terminal operations. According to Tošić (1992), from the mid-

twentieth century baggage processing has become an important subject due to the increase and

changes in each of an aircraft’s size, passenger volume, and airport handling procedures. de

Neufville and Odoni (2003) report that baggage space is one of the most problematic aspects of

baggage handling for two reasons; first, the location of the Baggage Handling System (B.H.S) is

usually in the basement, surrounded by huge columns that support the terminal building. Second,

the system, which has conveyer belts or tilts trays, is complex and inflexible. As a result, the lack

of space causes maintenance issues for the mechanical structure of the system. These technical

problems will not be taken care of if there is not adequate access to the equipment (de Neufville

and Odoni, 2003).

Several researchers have made recommendations for dealing with space-related problems.

Some of these recommendations are found in the literature. de Neufville and Odoni (2003) report

that architects should make sure that there is enough adequate height of floor-to-ceiling space

accessible for people while planning for baggage and mechanical systems space. In designing

baggage handling system facilitates, planners need to consult with airlines, baggage handlers,

and maintenance crews who are directly involved in operating the system equipment (de

Neufville and Odoni, 2003). Bellioti et al. (2010) indicate that common baggage sorting and

baggage screening can be found that will work well in space-constrained areas. As a result

airport operators should cooperate with the airlines to plan for common use space.


Source: (FAA Advisory Circular, 1988; Bellioti et al., 2010; Tošić, 1992).

Another problem identified in the literature is the lack of standardization of airports’

baggage handling systems. de Neufville and Odoni (2003) explain that the design of baggage

systems has not been standardized due to the impact of several factors like new security

regulations, baggage handling technology, and the diverseness of devices. New security

Table 3

Common Baggage Problems

Problems (Factors)

Outcomes

Solutions

Baggage Handling

Baggage Space: 1) The location

of B.H.S area is usually in the terminal basement.

2) The system is complex and inflexible.

Maintenance issues; technical problems will not be necessarily taken care of

1) Architects should make sure that there is enough adequate height of floor-to-ceiling accessible for people while planning for baggage and mechanical systems space. 2) Planners need to consult with airlines, baggage handlers, and maintenance crews while designing baggage handling system facilitates

Lacking space for baggage handling

system facility Lack of

standardization: industrial countries

have their own devices:

(diverseness of devices)

Reduces the availability of general rules for planning baggage systems.

1) Cautions should be used in the application of the rules. 2) Planners need to consult with the security baggage handling specialists to define the adequate required space for the system.

Late arrival of bags at the baggage claim facility

Passenger congestion in the baggage claim area

1) Application of IATA (1995) standards: minimum distance between the baggage claim carousals should be 9 meters or 30 feet 2) Modification of IATA and FAA baggage claim areas according to the local realities.


regulations present new X-ray or scanning devices along with their evolved design and

performance (de Neufville and Odoni, 2003). The progress and changes in technologies like laser

readers and radio frequency identification systems (FRID) make the technology of baggage

handling change difficult (de Neufville and Odoni, 2003). It is reported that many different

devices are being used in baggage handling, especially on the international level among major

industrial countries, and this adds to the problem of standardizing operations (de Neufville and

Odoni, 2003).

It has also been recognized that the lack of standardization for baggage handling may affect

baggage handling systems planning. According to de Neufville and Odoni (2003), the existence

of various systems can reduce the availability of necessary general rules and regulations for

planning baggage handling systems. The FAA Advisory Circular (1988) recommends that

cautions should be used in the application of the rules devoted to dealing with passenger baggage

handling. Due to the lack of general rules and the existence of so many diverse and dynamic

technologies, planners initially need to consult with the security baggage handling specialists to

determine the adequate space required for handling the baggage function and investigate how the

space will enhance the function.

There are several other problems associated with baggage handling issues. For example, the

late arrival of bags and congestion in baggage claims areas are often cited as significant

problems. Tošić (1992) presents several factors that affect baggage claims and arriving bags, like

the number of passengers, number of bags per passenger, baggage flow and delays, passenger

queuing, and baggage queuing. Congestion is one of the most common problems which exist

surrounding the arrival of baggage onto terminal carousals due to the gathering passengers at the

baggage claim area. There are a number of recommendations for solving these problems offered


by the International Air Transportation Association (IATA) (de Neufville and Odoni, 2003). The

IATA’s standards (1995) require that the distance between baggage claim carousals must be at

least 9 meters or 30 feet (de Neufville and Odoni, 2003). IATA and FAA baggage claim

standards need to be modified based on the local realities like the average number of checked

bags (de Neufville and Odoni, 2003).

Gates and gate assignments are other problematic areas within airport passenger terminal

operations. Wells and Young (2011) believe that gates are the most prominent and challenging

aspects of planning and management of the apron in dealing with aircraft parking positions. As a

result several recommendations are required to achieve efficient operations. According to Bouras

et al. (2014), airport issues related to airport gate assignment problems (AGAP) must be

understood. These researchers claim that it is an essential aspect of airport operations and this

explains why there has been so much research done in this area. Table 4 shows gate assignment

problems and their impacts on terminal operations. It has been recognized that gate assignment

problems exist among all of the world’s airports for a variety of reasons and factors. Bielaire and

Kumar (2013) report that, in the United States’ airports aircrafts are not allowed to be parked on

the remote stands. This requirement has been established in legal codes and laws governing

airport operations. Moreover, the law requires that all passengers are supposed to be enplaned

and deplaned through airport gates. Unlike U.S. airports, using remote stands are allowed in

many European and Asian airports. In these cases, aircrafts are parked far away from terminal

gates. Then, the arriving or departing passengers are transferred from or to the terminal or

aircraft, in the absence of an available gate by using shuttle busses (Bielaire and Kumar, 2013).

Using remote stands may often result in problems and it is not uncommon for these systems


Source: (Bielaire and Kumar, 2013 & FAA Advisory Circular, 1988).

to experience major disruptions. Often, aircrafts are required to wait on the runway for several

Table 4

Terminal Gate Assignment Problems (GAP)

Problems (Factors)

Outcomes

Solutions

Terminal Gate Assignment

Using remote

stands for parking aircrafts

Aircrafts are required to wait on the runway for a very long time till all the passengers are moved from/to the aircraft(s) by shuttle buses.

Using the U.S airport models: it is illegal to park aircrafts on the remote stands and transfer passengers to/from the terminal or aircraft by using shuttle buses.

The variety of aircraft

sizes

Adjacency issue: Two large aircrafts cannot be provided with two near-by gates due to limitations in space and structure of the parking position.

FAA Regulation: Designers and planners should design gates for largest expected aircraft. Gate types have been categorized to A, B, C, and D based on different aircraft sizes.

Last-in-first-out (LIFO) Gates

When two aircrafts are being parked in two neighboring gates, the first aircraft cannot move until the second or the last parked aircraft will move.

This issue “[neither] widely considered

nor extensively studied by the researchers.”

Unassigned

turns: Gates may

not be available

all the times

Air carriers face a high cost and receive low customer satisfaction

Air carriers wait till a gate will be available for their flight or will borrow a gate from other airlines. These solutions are not preferred.


hours until all the passengers are enplaned or deplaned (Bielaire and Kumar, 2013).

It has also been recognized hat different sizes of aircrafts being parked in designated parking

positions may cause problems for gate assignment. Bielaire and Kumar (2013) define

“adjacency” as one of the issues that affects assigning two neighboring gates to adjoin two

different aircraft types. Adjacency can be described as the situation when two large aircrafts

cannot be provided with two near-by parking positions or gates due to limitations related to

space and structure (Bielaire and Kumar, 2013). One example can explain the adjacency

situation—when Gate A1 is devoted to parking an aircraft of a certain type or size, like Boeing

747, Gate A2, the neighbor gate of A1, will not be able to accommodate a wide bodied aircraft

like Airbus 340 since these two aircrafts have different sizes and their parking spaces are limited

(Bielaire and Kumar, 2013).

According to the FAA Advisory Circular (1988), to utilize gates for serving various

aircrafts, designers and planners should design them for the largest expected aircraft. Giving an

efficient to the airport apron, the length of each aircraft body (fuselage) and wing spans must be

taken into consideration (FAA Advisory Circular, 1988). Terminal apron gate types can be

identified based on their accommodations for four aircraft size groups: the gate types have been

categorized as A, B, C, and D (FAA Advisory Circular, 1988). Table 5 displays all the four gate

types according to their accommodations for certain aircraft sizes.

Assigning two adjoined terminal gates may be problematic in some certain situations.

Bielaire and Kumar (2013) observe that some types of gates are called last-in-first-out (LIFO)

gates. LIFO gates are described as two neighboring gates, Gate #1 and Gate #2, for instance, that

are often not able to accommodate two aircrafts based on expecting a gate problem.


Source: (FAA Advisory Circular, 1988).

Locating in the right side, Gate #2 cannot be used for parking an aircraft, or the aircraft parked at

Gate #2 cannot depart if there is an aircraft parked at Gate #1, even if it is free (Bielaire and

Kumar, 2013). The LIFO gate situation has not been such a concern for researchers (Bielaire and

Kumar, 2013).

Airport terminal gates may not be available for passenger flights at all times. According to

Bielaire and Kumar (2013), airlines have specific times for their flight operations; it can often be

seen that a number of aircrafts, belong to an airline, have been parked on ground but no gates are

available for their next flights. Bielaire and Kumar (2013) have mentioned this situation

mentioned this situation as "unassigned turns”. Facing unassigned turns situation, air carriers will

wait until a gate is available for their flight or will borrow a gate from other airlines. Both of

these solutions are not preferred by the air carriers since they involve a high cost and affect

customers’ satisfaction. (Bielaire and Kumar, 2013).

Airport passenger terminal security faces its own challenges along with the obvious growth

in number of airport passengers. Graham (2014) believes that improving airport security

processes has become one of the most difficult tasks in passenger experience. As the number of

airport passengers increases, managing security processes becomes more challenging even

without enhancing passengers convenience (Graham, 2014). New types of threats have caused

airport security to seek new technology (Graham, 2014). The example of a plastic bomb hidden

Table 5 Terminal Gate Types and Aircraft Sizes

Gate Type

Aircraft Size Wing Span Length Fuselage Length

A 79 feet (24 m) - 118 feet (36 m) B 118 feet (36 m) – 171 feet (52 m) Less than 160 feet (49 m) C Greater than 160 feet (49 m) D 171 feet (52 m) – 213 (65 m)


in the underwear of a passenger, who attempted to fly from Amsterdam to Detroit on December

25, 2009 by Northwest Airlines, without being detected by security, indicates that the recent

technology of screening has been insufficient to face a new threat (Graham, 2014).

Since most of the world’s airports are connected together through aircraft movements,

airport security faces difficulty in globalizing certain security-related agreements. Graham (2014)

indicates that it is very difficult to persuade a country to recognize and trust the security

agreements that have been made somewhere else. Lastly, the future of airport security remains

ambiguous and undefined since airport security protects against unknown threats (Wells and

Young, 2011).

In trying to deal with and find the best solutions for preventing threats to airport security,

multiple government security-related agencies have been formed and are working to address

these threats, specifically in the baggage screening area. According to the Government

Accountability Office (GAO) (2012), the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) has

mandated that all airports checked bags must be screened through the use of explosive detection

systems. To carry out this process, TSA utilizes two types of screening equipment within the

airports of the United States: Explosive Detection Systems (EDS) and Explosive Trace Detection

(ETD) (GAO, 2012). The EDS uses X-rays connected with computer imaging to define and

detect explosives. Through the use of ETD machines, a human operator or baggage screener can

carry out chemical analysis and manually recognize any explosive materials vapors and residue

(GAO, 2012).

Coordinating with the airlines and airports, TSA attempts to achieve the most efficient and

effective baggage screening configuration at the airports (GAO, 2012). Through the Electronic

Baggage Screening Program (EBSP), 76 percent of the airports regulated by TSA have been


provided with in-line and stand-alone baggage screening configurations that can meet airport

needs (GAO, 2012). Although dealing with in-line systems solutions may not be cost-effective at

larger airports or the terminals with fewer bags per week to screen, TSA continues in its planning

in optimizing systems through many recapitalizing projects (GAO, 2012). To provide more

efficient optimal baggage screening systems, the provision of an additional $1.15 billion will be

allocated through the fiscal year 2030 (GAO, 2012).

CHAPTER 4

Case Study: An Examination of Gate Availability Issues at Dallas Love Airport

As previously indicated, the number of available gates may affect airport terminal operations.

There could be several reasons behind the unavailability of gates at an airport terminal. Airlines

could be the essential parties that engage in such kinds of problems since they are mainly

operating certain numbers of flights by utilizing airport terminal gates. Gate preference, for

instance, can be one of the factors that affect gate availability. Some airlines intend to use only

specific gates based on convenience and/or utilizing their special equipment in certain gates

(Wells and Young, 2011; Bielaire and Kumar, 2013).

The 1979 Amendment of the Federal Aviation Act of 1958 mandated that flights be

restricted to Dallas Love Field airport to avoid competition with another newly built airport in

the region: Dallas/Fort Worth International Airport (DFW) (Cohler, 2015). Under the Wright

Amendment legislations for Love Field airport, commercial air transportation from Love outside

of Texas State is prohibited unless a charter air transportation operates less than ten flights per

month or a regional airline operates an aircraft with a capacity of 56 passengers or less (Cohler,

2015). However, if the capacity of the aircraft, operated by a commercial air carrier, for a

commercial air transportation from Love Field exceeds 56 passengers, the flights will be limited


to operating non-stop flights to one or more destinations within the States of Texas, Louisiana,

Arkansas, Oklahoma, and New Mexico (Cohler, 2015). This bill was passed by Congress in 1997;

the Shelby amendment added the states of Alabama, Kansas, and Mississippi to the Wright

Amendment (Cohler, 2015).

Also, limiting the number of operating gates may affect airport terminal operations. As an

agreement among five related parties, one of the stipulations of Wright Amendment Repeal

compromise in 2006 was a permanent reduction of Love Field gate capacity from 32 to 20 gates

(Cohler, 2015).According to DMMJM/AECOM, (2006), based on the operational scenarios at

Love Field airport, in the absence of Wright Amendment, forecasts for 2020 show significant

increases in the airport's passenger and aircraft operations while all the 32 gates are being in use.

Under the "no Wright Amendment Scenario", using all the 32 gates in 2020 will increase the

annual enplanements by almost 100 percent, the annual airline operations by 98.6 percent, and

turns per gate by 94.7 percent (DMMJM/AECOM, 2006).

This case study is an example of a relevant problem observed at Dallas Love Airport where

the number of available gates has declined by law to limit the airport's competency with another

nearby airport. The clear results of implementing “no Wright Amendment Scenario” can be an

indicator of how limiting the number of available airport terminal gates can negatively affect

airport terminal operations consistently in present and in the future. As observed through the

forecast for 2020, the more Dallas Love Airport gates are being restricted in use, the less

increases in the airport’s passenger and aircraft operations are available (Cohler, 2015).

CHAPTER 5

Conclusion

Airport passenger terminal operations consist of a variety of terminal activities designed to


serve terminal passengers. The structure of different terminal facilities participate in the

provision of these services and activities devoted to airport passengers. Based on the existence of

many issues observed within airport passenger terminals, certain related problems in terminal

design, check-in facilities, baggage handling, gates, and security can have their own impacts on

terminal operations. Terminal design problems include long passenger walking distances, narrow

passage ways, and limited federal funding. Passenger check-in problems include the related

issues with number and availability of check-in counters along with the existence of temporary

congestions happen as a result of using passengers’ self-check in services. Space and lack of

standardization and late arrival of bags are the essential problems of baggage handling. Gate

assignment problems can be the use of remote stands for parking aircrafts, the variety of aircraft

sizes, the situation of facing the last-in-first-out in parking aircrafts, and unassigned turns. Lastly,

consistent security threats from different sources of criminals and terrorists like hijacking and

bomb attacking are other problems that affect airport passenger terminal operations.

The impacts of these problems can be found when they have a variety of outcomes affecting

passenger flight operations in terms of travel time, convenience, and security. Although many

recommendations or suggestions have been made to remedy these problems many of them still

exist and remain common. Further research studies can be conducted to investigate whether the

current terminal operational problems require more efficient solutions or to find out whether

these operations themselves are inefficient and need drastic measures for improvement.


References

Bandara, S. & Wirasinghe, S. C. (1992). Walking distance minimization for airport terminal

configurations. Transportation Research, 26(1), 59-74.

Bellioti, R., Barch, F., Phy, J., Reed, P., & Angew, R. (2010). Reference guide on understanding

common use at airports (Report No.30). Retrieved from National Academies

Press website: http://www.nap.edu/read/14375/chapter/13

Bierlair, M. & Kumar, V. P. (2013). Multi-objective airport gate assignment problem in planning

and operations. Journal of Advanced Transportation J. Adv. Transp. 48(7), 902-

926.

Bouras, A., Ghaleb, M.A., Suryahatamaja, U.S., & Salem A., M. (2014). The airport gate

assignment problem. http://www.hindawi.com/journals/tswj/2014/923859/

Brussels explosions: What we know about airport and metro attacks. (2016). Retrieved March 23,

2016, from http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-35869985

Brussels explosions: What we know about airport and metro attacks. (n.d.). Retrieved April 02,

2016, from http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-35869985

Cohler, A. (2015). The “Wright” move for love: A pros and cons review of the wright

amendment repeal compromise. Research Papers. Retrieved from

http://opensiuc.lib.siu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1803&context=gs_rp

De Neufville, R., & Odoni, A.R. (2003). Airport systems: Planning, design, and management.

New York: McGraw.Hill.

http://www.nap.edu/read/14375/chapter/13

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-35869985


DMJM/AECOM & City of Dallas. (2006, May 31). Dallas Love Field Impact Analysis Update

In The Absence of the Wright Amendment. DMJM/AECOM. Retrieved April 15, 2016

from http://www.dallas-lovefield.com/pdf/WrightImpactReport.pdf.

Drexl, A., &Nikulin, Y. (2008). Multicriteria airport gate assignment and Pareto simulated

annealing. IIE Transactions,40(4), 385-397. doi:10.1080/07408170701416673

Graham, A. (2014). Managing Airport: An international perspective. Routledge (Ed.). Glasgow,

United Kingdom.

Hamzawi, S. (1992). Lack of airport capacity: Exploration of alternative solutions.

Transportation Research, 26(1), 47-56.

Hsu, C., Chao, C., & Shih, K. (2012). Dynamic allocation of check-in facilities and dynamic

assignment of passengers at air terminals. Computers & Industrial Engineering.

63(2), 410-417.

Kusumaningtyas, I., Paro, J., Lodewijks, J.. (2007). Accelerating Moving Walkways for Quality

People Transport in Airports: An Assessment of Their Applicability in Amsterdam

Airport Schiphol [Abstracts.aetransport.org]. AET Papers Repository. doi:ISSN 2313-

1853

Lim, A., Rodrigues, B., &Zhu, Y. (2005). Airport Gates Scheduling with Time Windows.

Artificial Intelligence Review,24(1), 5-31.

Planning and Design Guidelines for Airport Terminal Facilities (Rep. No. AC 150/5360-13).

(1988). Retrieved April 10, 2016, from FAA website.


Price, J.C., & Forrest, J.S. (2016). Practical airport operations, safety, and emergency

management: Protocols for today and the future. Cambridge, MA, United States,

Butterworth-Heinemann imprint of Elsevier.

Robuste, F. &Daganzo, C. (1992). Analysis of baggage sorting schemes for containerized

aircraft. Transportation Research, 26(1), 75-92.

Sorenson, M. (June 16, 2015). Trends in airport terminal planning. Mead and Hunt. Retrieved

from http://meadhunt.com/terminal-planning-2/

Tošić, V. (1992). A review of airport passenger terminal operations analysis and modelling.

Transportation Research, 26(1), 3-26.

TSA Has Deployed Optimal Systems at the Majority of TSA-Regulated Airports, but Could

Strengthen Cost Estimates (Rep. No. GAO-12-266). (2012). Retrieved April 12, 2016,

from Government Accountability Office GAO website.

Wells, A. T., & Young, S.B. (2011). Airport planning and management. New York, NY:

McGraw-Hill.


VITA

Graduate School Southern Illinois University

Karzan Salih M. Shareef

[email protected]

Salahaddin University, Erbil, Iraqi Kurdistan Bachelor of Arts, English Language, October 2008 Research Paper Title: COMMON PROBLEMS OF AIRPORT PASSENGER TERMINAL OPERATIONS

Major Professor: Dr. Stephanie Pink-Harper

Documents

CHAPTER 1 Introduction - OpenSIUC